0 Votes
RE: Disappearing Options
I think Romney’s response would be something like this:
“I’m running for political office, not church office. I suggest you go to official sources if you have doctrinal questions.”
My assessment of the craziness: 0. On a scale from 1 to 10. (Yes, that’s right. 0.)
I think that all religious beliefs appear crazy when examined closely by a non believer.
First, don’t say all. It makes it too easy to dismiss your whole argument.
Second, it’s not the closeness of the examination; it’s the bias and error.
RE: Disappearing Options by Occams
I don’t think so. The media will make no effort to consider correct LDS doctrine when it frames its questions. On the contrary, it will formulate them in the most bizzare manner possible. They will assume (correctly) that the public is not interested in hearing correct LDS doctrine. They tried to make a muslim our of Obama and they will try to make a religious fool out of Romney. The media often asks questions on a 0 level of craziness.
Mine are not doctrinal questions. They are questions that are trying to discover if the new President believes weird stuff. For example if he believes that becoming a god is possible then perhaps he will come to believe that he has made it now that he is one of the most powerful people in the world. We do really need to know if the finger on the trigger is governerned by a sane rational mind. People in other countries having different faiths may be concerned that he intends to punish them. Every new policy that he is involved in will be scrutinised for Mormon encroachment.
Personally, I would be more concerned if he came from one of those fundamentalist Christian groups like (S Palin’s) that looks forward eagerly to the “end times”, but I presume that LDS is not so far towards the dangerously crazy end of the spectrum. Other Americans will not be so sure, He, and you, can look forward to him being probed on every aspect of his religious beliefs. LDS dogma and doctrine will come under an intense global spotlight. I wonder if it can stand up to that without wilting.
First, don’t say all. It makes it too easy to dismiss your whole argument.
I stand by that. Can you name one religious tradition that doed not have elements to its beliefs that are so improbable as to deserve to be called "crazy"by a non believer – I can’t (unless you consider athiesm as a religion). I think that if you were not a devout Mormon you would understand this better. Consider how a Chinese peasant, or a North Korean general, who has never heard of LDS will think when some of the new President’s beliefs are explained to him.
RE: Disappearing Options by scottb
“I’m running for political office, not church office. I suggest you go to official sources if you have doctrinal questions.”
I’d have to agree with Occams, here. That answer is evasive.
The questions weren’t meant as a test of his knowledge of LDS doctrine. It’s legitimate to ask whether he believes these things.
Does he believe Jesus and Satan are brothers? That their father lives on a planet, named Kobol, that’s actually located physically out in space somewhere? That he’ll one day be a god presiding over his own planet?
You know that there are elements of LDS doctrine that non-believers consider weird, and it’s legitimate to ask whether Romney believes these things.
These days, relatively few American Catholics believe in a literal transubstantiation (though I’m sure Santorum does) — wouldn’t it be fair to ask a Catholic candidate whether he believed that bread and wine literally turned into flesh and blood when the priest says the magic words each Sunday?